|
05-20-2011, 05:36 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
I feel the same way you do, except I got to that point years ago during the 2008 election cycle when Romney was hateful on the immigration issue. Whether I agreed with the substance of his comments was not important; it was the transparent pandering that made me practically vomit. The pandering is sickening.
Insincere is a perfect adjective for him.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
05-20-2011, 06:44 PM | #2 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
I known four people who have associated or worked with the political Mitt Romney in person, and all four say there is no way they would ever vote for him.
I've also known two people who either had him as their stake president or as a family member's stake president, and they both think he's the greatest thing since the Commodore 64. I guess if you hear someone give a powerful talk in church, and signs your temple recommends with a loving twinkle, it must mean that 17 years later he's as solid as a rock in every aspect of life, including the 90% of his life that transpires outside of the stake offices, and would be a beacon of gospel living in the White House. (Just kindly overlook the fact that this was NOT the case in the governor's mansion, for surely things would be different in Washington). |
05-20-2011, 07:12 PM | #3 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I didn't care for him very much, last time around, let me make that clear.
I was willing to give him a second chance, on the off-hand that maybe he had learned his lesson. He has not. So I am done. It may be that my views might best be described as "moderate Republican" anyway, so someone like Huntsman might be someone for me to take a look at. |
05-20-2011, 07:28 PM | #4 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
There are likely many people that I would never vote for President (or another other office) that would be commendable in their church callings.
|
05-20-2011, 07:39 PM | #5 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
I don't vote for Presidents usually, I vote against the bigger evil.
Obama is wrong on all taxes that matter, he is wrong on health care reform and he is wrong on how he approaches military matters. He also appears to lack intellectual curiosity but merely regurgitates certain bloggers. His approach to the mortgage mess made matters worse not better. Those are the meaty matters. Yet it appears the Republicans don't want to win, so we will continue to suffer at the hands of Obama. I don't care how serious he is, if he's wrong on all substantial issues. That doesn't sound like a reason to vote for him. I'd prefer a non-serious person who got it right on a few issues that are meaty and that affect us. Not impressed with Mitt, but at least he might get a few issues right. Do you agree with Obama on how he sold out to the banking interests in order to make the collapse worse than it was previously?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
05-20-2011, 08:05 PM | #6 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Obama has actually done very little that a GOP president wouldn't have.
I think a GOP president would have sold out to banking interests faster and with more money. |
05-20-2011, 10:49 PM | #7 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
In this you are mistaken. Bush for all his faults actuallty had a plan that would have succeeded in saving the homes for millions of homeowners. They had the plan and wanted to hand it over to Obama who was swayed by banking interestes to incentivize foreclosures whereas the Bush plan would have reduced principal. You are dead wrong on this issue. Obama is much worse.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
05-20-2011, 11:06 PM | #8 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Well, I am against using tax money to prop up the housing market by reducing principal.
That's BS. So I'm against Bush's liberal plan that rewards speculation and artificially inflates housing prices so that working families STILL can't afford homes. It's not like I'm likely to vote for Obama. His anti-gun stance is probably a deal-breaker for me. |
05-21-2011, 12:21 PM | #9 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
You don't understand what Obama did.
Obama propped up the banks by using taxpayer money to help them foreclose to crash prices more. Bush wanted that money to reduce principal. Both bad ideas but if you're going to do one, then do Bush's. The better idea is to remove the mortgage insurance, let banks fail so that banks and homeowners resolve the matter on their own. That would stabilize prices without taxpayer money. Obama had the worst option of the three. In other words, he got into bed with the banks to screw the homeowner with homeowner tax money. How'd you like that?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
05-21-2011, 01:36 PM | #10 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
So you want the govt. to pay down people's principal on homes, ONLY if they are near foreclosure.
More transfer of money to idiots. You live in Vegas where the market was so overblown that it was ridiculous. It HAD to pop. Anything that keeps that bubble inflated at this point is bad. |
Bookmarks |
|
|